Posted
by
Zonk
on Wednesday July 05, 2006 @11:10AM
from the download-the-rehashes dept.

simoniker writes "Talking about its PlayStation 3 E-Distribution Initiative, the company's intended Xbox Live Arcade 'killer', SCEA's John Hight has laid down a challenge to Microsoft, commenting that: 'Some of our [digitally distributed first-party] games, by virtue of their design and hardware demands, simply couldn't work on Xbox 360.'" More from the article: "The PlayStation Beyond submission site has been online since GDC 2006, when Sony's Phil Harrison announced its presence, and explains further of the concept: 'The E-Distribution Initiative (EDI) will provide an alternative publishing opportunity for the direct download of games and other content to the user. The EDI will be managed by Sony Computer Entertainment's development and studio organizations in North America, Europe, Japan and Asia (collectively known as SCE Worldwide Studios).'"

We've had so many stories about the PS3, and I'm excited because of the Cell chips, but with all this chatter, HAS ANYONE SEEN A DEMO?

Does the thing work, yet? Are there any games people have seen running? Are the graphics or the smarts or the complexity really beyond the 360? Is it all simulation for design, still, or is there a PS3 that basically works that people have seen, and is it stunning?

Basically, it has games running on it. The games dont look any better that the 360, and certainly dont look as good as the images they released ages ago. Its pretty much meh, hence the price tag being too much as you can get a 360 and a wii for less that a PS3, and have the same graphics and innovative gameplay (with the wii). go look up the E3 coverage for running demo viedos

As for this digital distribution thing, I fail to see how it is better than the 360's.

All the E3 demos were running on dev kits, not final PS3 hardware (and before any uninformed PS3 fans deny this, I was there, I saw them and I posted photos on flickr). Having said that, at this stage in the game I'd expect devkits to pretty much exactly match final specs (although I've heard rumors lately of a speed drop on the cpu). Anyway, regardless of all that games were running and were playable. And they were decent looking - but certainly not obviously better than anything the 360 can do. I spent a few minutes studying Virtua Tennis running side by side on a 360 and a PS3 and couldn't tell the difference. I even asked the producer if there was a difference and he said "basically, no". That's only one game and only one developer (Sega), but I'm personally not holding my breath for any major jump in graphics over the 360.

Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't really expect any graphical difference on a cross-platform game. Optimizing for one console or the other doesn't pay off in that situation. The problem, of course, is that comparing exclusives to one another isn't going to be very reasonable either.

I suppose we'll actually have to wait and see whether the PS3 games can wow people or not.

You should take a look at the Gears of War video from E3. That is definitely a real-time capture of the game as it is played, and not something pre-rendered or a rendered cinematic. (Halo 3 is a rendered cinematic, which means no AI, extra game logic, etc.)

"Some of our [digitally distributed first-party] games, by virtue of their design and hardware demands, simply couldn't work on Xbox 360"
So he means they're developed without cross platform distribution in mind. Let's not be so harsh about it Phil, just be honest about it.

I think Phil is referring to a downloadable competitor to Uno (which has made a big splash on XBox Live Arcade) that they are developing. The technical requirements are phenomenal, even the PS3 will barely be able to run it.

John Hight has laid down a challenge to Microsoft, commenting that: 'Some of our [digitally distributed first-party] games, by virtue of their design and hardware demands, simply couldn't work on Xbox 360.'"

And why are the hardware demands so high? Is it because the games are that much cooler? Or because the programmers suck? Reminds me of the reason why Windows Vista's Hardware requirements are so bloated.

This is great marketing here! He doesn't say the 360 isn't powerful enough or anything like that just "by virtue of their design and hardware demands, simply couldn't work on Xbox 360.". So they've designed our games to run on cell processors.. the 360 doesn't have a cell processor... so it just won't work on a 360. And the way they say it makes one assume the 360 doesn't have the power the PS3 does even though he said no such thing.

Here's my version;-) The original Pong, by virtue of its design and hardware demands, simply couldn't work on a PS3.

The games for the PS3 will cost $80 -- the 360 just can't handle games that cost that much. I hear they're working on a new version of pong for the PS3 to take advantage of the advanced hardware -- rumor has it that the paddles will move in 4 dimensions (standard 3 spatial dimensions and the 4th dimension of TIME ITSELF!), the ball will have a real-life physics engine, the game will read your mind to play the song you're thinking of in 7.1 surround sound just to you (supports up to 4 different songs simult

Actually, when I read that comment, I translated it as "we have games that require the tilt sensetivity of the DualShake." In other words, they're designed to the PS3 controller's "unique" functions, and can't be ported to the XBox360 because the XBox360's controller doesn't support the same things the PS3's DualShake does.

Notice how they never said they couldn't be ported to the Wii...

Although, if the PS3 has a free dev-kit for creating these downloadable games, that might be about the only thing that

And why are the hardware demands so high? Is it because the games are that much cooler? Or because the programmers suck? Reminds me of the reason why Windows Vista's Hardware requirements are so bloated.

It makes me pine for the good old days of DOS gaming when developers squeezed the hardware for every last ounce of performance they could get, which required good design, clever/efficient algorithms, and even bits of human-optimized assembler. We pushed the machines until they wouldn't go any further.

I'm not a Nintendo fanboy, but I'm afraid that I'm about to become one; I've noticed that Nintendo tends to go this design route more often than the competition (ie attempting to fully utilize meager hardware). In fact, if you inspect their current and next gen offerings, you'll discover that the machines have a bit fewer resources than the competition. For example, compare the DS and Sony PSP. Sony's device is overpowering by far in terms of hardware resources, but I read lots of complaints that the games are bloated and slow.:(

With states like oklahoma passing laws against selling violent games to children... they might have a problem on their hands with age verification. Or maybe they wont be able to sell games with lots of violence online, crippling them back down to the simple games of xbox live arcade.

With states like oklahoma passing laws against selling violent games to children... they might have a problem on their hands with age verification. Or maybe they wont be able to sell games with lots of violence online, crippling them back down to the simple games of xbox live arcade.

Credit Cards have an age verification system that has been in use for years. That's probably how they will find out if the buyer is 18 or not. That's assuming the laws aren't overturned on constitutional grounds.

Am I the only one who refuses to pay a subscription so that I have the privlage of paying for additonal content?
If Sony makes the service itself free of cost than I might consider it, but if they chose the Xbox live model forget about it.
On a side note, are there any decent games on the 360 yet, or is it faring as well as the Xbox did in that regard? (I may be in the monority here but I do not care for sport "sims", racers and console speed FPSes)
The biggest thing I fear in the gaming industry is Microsoft killing inovation by flooding the market with focus group tested "sure thing" products.

You do not need the paid gold account to download new content like Arcade games. Gold membership gets you in the door for on-line play with the games you have. Less than $5 per month is a small price to pay to be on Microsoft servers with players that are held responsible for their behavior be it cheating, abuse etc...

Now from what I understand Sony will use basically the PC structure of on-line play via a ad-hoc type of network. This absolves Sony of significant infrastructure management but invites all kinds of problems in terms of quality control. Game developers are always touting about the fixed hardware set for consoles and how that helps them on maximizing performance and hitting deadlines because they can avoid the moving goal posts of PC gaming. I'm not sure how Sony will structure this network (no one does apparently) but you would think developers will be less than thrilled with implementing their own on-line connectivity solutions, ala Gamespy interfaces and the like.

As to your side note, yes there are decent games on the 360. Oblivion is quite good. You have a very narrow definition of what you care for apparently. You don't like sports games, racing games nor "console speed FPSes"[sic]. I'm not quite sure what you mean by FPS in that statement but then again, I'm not sure what genre you do like. It would be easier if you stated what games you do like instead of those you don't and I'm sure you could receive some more meaningful feedback (if that's what you're interested in).

I'm not sure what this fear is you describe with Microsoft killing innovation. Are you suggesting that Microsoft suppresses quality games by developers out of some desire to only release popular titles? If anything I think Microsoft has taken very large steps towards helping Indy developers and smaller publishers with their digital distribution over Xbox Live and their willingness to deliver bandwidth for free trial downloads of this content. Try a friend's 360 and test drive "Wik" from the Arcade. This is no main stream blockbuster title but it's innovative and fun. Big brother really isn't out to get you. Microsoft wants to make money and they do that by delivering products that the public wants to purchase. You want to blame them for delivering popular content, I applaud them. I also give them credit for establishing a medium and pricing venue that allows the smaller segment of the market to get a shot.

First, thank you for responding to my whole post. (as others pointed out I didn't realize XBL silver has the same downloadable content)Second, I will admit to being picky about my games (I don't really see it as a bad thing) here is a list of games I do like:

1. City of Heroes. (the only MMO I have ever returned to)2. Metal Gear Solid 1-3. (MGS 4 is a big deal for me)3. Zone of the Enders: The Second Runner. (never played the first one)4. Shadow of the Collosus.5. Grand Theft Auto 3 and so on. (finally sims

Tomb Raider legend on the 360 surprised me. Finally the game doesn't play like Lara Croft is walking (slowly) on some unseen grid. The controls are actually pretty good this time around. Crystal Dynamics has done well and to be honest this is the first Tomb Raider game I've ever liked. I bought the first one, and I tried many of the others, but since every complaint I had about the original continued to come back time and time again I had long since written the series off

Here's a few Xbox titles you might enjoy (some older):Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (Yes, it's cross-platform, but the Xbox version is superior in every way to the other two. A re-invention of the 3rd person adventure game combining the mechanics of the original PoP from the 80s with revolutionary new gameplay features, like controlling the flow of time, and an excellent story-based framing.)

That sounds fine, if you want to play against people online. What if you don't? Then you have to pay ~$5/mo just in case something may be released for your game. That's like Licensing 6.0 and not getting a new release within your time frame. And if you paid for the game, that money went to fund the development of the expansions, yet you can't have the expansion unless you pay to access the server for online gaming whether or not you even want to play multiplayer.

I don't get what you mean.Xbox Live is a matching service. (At least, for 90% of games; there are some games that don't work that way, like Final Fantasy XI for instance.) Of course one of the player's machines is hosting the game; but that doesn't address the grandparent's point in any way... the Xbox Live quality control mechanisms still apply regardless of who's hosting. You can complain about an asshole player as easily in Halo 2 as you can in Crimson Skies, or any other Xbox Live game.

I own a ps2/ and a 360.xbox live is a rather poor service. There are some glaring obvious missing features. There is no match browser, or server/room whatever browser, you just get matched up with some dudes, and then after a quick game it doesn't just go to the next map you start over. It's cool for a quick session but lame for longer ones. I prefer the system sony has for the socom series which has improved at each iteration. Though I do appreciate the lack of obvious cheeting that still plagues tho

Well if you don't play sports sims, racers and FPSes, what the hell else is there to play online? An MMORPG?

You can even play joust (old school) online with XBL.

The best games for XBL 360 so far are COD2 and Chromehounds. Both excellent games with excellent online support. It appears that Chromehounds will soon be a very popular online game (Released on Jul 11th).

'Some of our [digitally distributed first-party] games, by virtue of their design and hardware demands, simply couldn't work on Xbox 360.'"

You could say the same of any Sony game that's written for the proprietary hardware. You can't "simply" run a Speak-and-Spell, Tiger handheld, NES cartridge, Betamax tape, or deck of pinochle cards on XBox 360 either.

Well, I'll take you up on this. The XBox 360 is honestly an incredibly poor platform for pinochle, but a cluster might be up to the job. You'd probably need at least twenty, and lots of high-quality duct tape, and perhaps some cinder blocks for auxillary support. I don't really think it would be a very good pinochle experience, but it might have some hack value.

I've heard a lot of people have given up on buying the PS3 for many reasons. Does anyone care about the PS3 still? Is anyone on Slashdot still excited about its launch? I'm actually curious if someone here, at the least, is all hyped to pick one up still.

maybe true... but his question was to the/. readers not joe six pack and the others that will buy sony because its PlayStation.. not because its a good console.I've been kinda wondering myself... the consensus for me is that most of you will maybe buy a wii and possibly a 360 when/if they are cheap enough.

But I see few if not none of the Sony PS2 fan-boys out bashing the other consoles like they did the gamecube.

have they simply matured since the Sega Nintendo 'blood and gore' battles ? or are they themsel

There is only one problem with that...most Joe Six Pack types cant afford it. Out of all my friends who have consoles, I only know one that has it hooked up to a large tv let alone an HD one. Sony IMHO is tremendously overestimating the market for what is for all intent and purposes an HD only console. My consoles are all hooked up to a 20 inch flatscreen because the big screen in the living room is for TV and Movies. My wife doesnt want to sit around and watch the kids and I play games all day. I woul

Millions is nothing, millions is assured. The launch units will sell out(all console launches pretty much do), and there's your millions. If by some stretch of the imagination it *doesn't* sell out at launch(personally I see absolutely no gaming reason to buy one at launch, but that's me), it's effectively dead. The key time comes *after* launch. And that's where the price is *really* a killer.It needs to sell 10s of millions to do well(on it's own) and at least 100 million(and counting) to not be a "fa

2. I don't allow M$ anything in my house, and the sony drm thing didn't affect me as I run linux for everything!By that logic as a Linux user how does M$'s brand of evil effect you any more than Sonys?

5. The ps3 will run linux!!

For half the price you can build a pc that runs Linux far better so how is that a selling point?

6. Sony have good internal developers (studio liverpool etc), and will always have good 3rd party support. Namco, Squnix, EA etc have supported sony for years.

"Some of our games, by virtue of their design and hardware demands, simply couldn't work on Xbox 360"

Im pretty sure this is just refering to the motion sensing which sony built into the control in a late attempt to jump onto the ninetendo bandwagon. it doesnt say that the xbox is incapable of running the game due to lack of resources such as cpu, mem etc

so sure, these games couldnt work on the xbox, but will xbox (& wii) owners really be missing much....? (especially when you look at price comparisons/value for money)

It doesn't make any sense to say that Sony has to get it's act together because Xbox has better software when the PS3 hasn't even launched yet. Basing your opinions of PS3 on demos is just irresponsible. And some Xbox fanboy's edit of the e3 press conference is not really a great media source for predicting the success of PS3.

My cousin will probably buy it but that's cause him and his 4 roommates always buy things together examples: they get a $2000 plasma tv, each only pays $500they get HBO & Showtime and split the billi'm sure they'll buy PS3 and split the cost (it's like each of them only buying 1 video game console!)

My roommates and I bought the PS2 when it came out. We put our names into a hat at the end of the year and the winner was allowed to buy it at the current used price at the games shops split six ways (one part back to himself so he wasn't overpaying). I didn't have the money. That and I didn't care. Back then the PS2 still had mostly crap for games.

To be honest I don't think it will end up in 1 piece. They typically break everything they buy too, for example, somebody punches the TV and it falls off the stand, or they're wrestling and somebody sits on the gaming console. I wouldn't worry too much about them trying to figure out how to split it, cause it'll probably already be in several pieces.

Many may question why they would care to Distribute first party games through electronic means after going through the trouble of implimenting Blue Ray for 'increased space for better, more involved games that you could get on other formats.' Some may even question pledging support for E-distro of these games with the sizes of harddrives their offering. Well I for one do not question them, it makes perfect sense from the point of view of historic trends and buisness. Unfortunatly for us, the reasoning is pure evil.

About the time of the 32-bit battles, an old trend began resurfacing in a new form; Forced Competition Development Denial (FCDD.) FCDD was easiest illustrated by Nintendo's NES. They choked off development for other consoles (namely the Sega Master System) by forcing developers to choose; in this case by having them sign contracts preventing them. That was killed in the courts and for the 16-bit console wars, FCDD didn't happen; the only denial of competition was from sales, loyalty, and popularity (oh, and who bring the $$.) From that, you had relativly similar cross platform offering and much less exclusivity.

In the lastest Generations, however, FCDD has resurfaced in a more diabolical, more legal form. By creating hardware and formats incompatible with their competition (as in Sega Saturns multiprocessor setup, 64's cartrige format) forcing developers to strech their resources to support them all. It is in the developer's best (buisness) interest to develope a game for as many platforms as its resources will allow without impacting the game's quality in a way that it will hurt overall sales. As new competition enters the console game, the developers are already becoming streched naturally. The FCDD tactic takes this further by increasing the resources the developer must devote to developing for a particular system; stealing those resources from other consoles and hopefully costing the developer to drop support for a competitor. In this generation FCDD is hitting a high mark, especially between Sony and Nintendo (Microsoft is guilty too, they just hide it well.) Nintendo's controller will require a different devotion of resources, namely creative input, to 'port' games successfully without disappointing. Sony has an unholy FCDD armament in the form of their Cell processor. This octopus of a processor is built in such a devious way that multi-threading in their programming is almost impossible to avoid; complicating the development process.

E-Distro is a huge next step. Not only is it on their format tailored for their hardware, Sony manages to monopolize the entire game development by forcing the developer to integrate Sony into every level of the game; it would become a nightmare for developers to to go cross platform (especially if they are targeting indy and small time developers, who have notoriously small budgets.) Don't expect games released by E-distro on Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft to be appearing on any where else. And that, unfortunatly, is the point.

On another note, FCDD is a risky tactic for any developer. Increasing resource costs can also force developers to reconsider developing for the FCDD console itself. FCDD practictioners need to put more reliance on brand popularity (which Sony seems to rely a lot on) and really sell the FCDD hardware as "superior choices" if it's going to really win those ever important developer games. Jaguar and Saturn are two good examples of consoles that (inpart) failed because of a backfire of their FCDD tactic. Don't let Sony's focus on 'first party games' in the article fool you, this is all about the 3rd party developers; lower distribution costs for their own titles is just a happy bonus.

Right on!Where are mod points when you need them?I just think about a perfect example. Although innovative, the Nintendo DS dual screen setup + touch screen serves this purpose in the portable scene.The interesting question is, to what extent is creativity and risk taking limited when creating a game just because of this?

For example, I may have a hot franchise in my hands (e.g. pirates of the caribbean), I could actually write a DS game that mixed action, aventure and RPG elements and fully utilized the DS

So your point is what? Is it that all consoles should be identical so they can all play all the games? What would be the point of having three manufactures if they all made the same console? I prefer choice even if that means I can't play every game on every console.

The point is to illustrate how FCDD can be a pain for both the gamer and the developer.It's funny that you mention it, but the idea of a universal console standard is not new (It was tried once by Pioneer). A standard will make the console a commodity and development costs will go down (along with developer salaries).

However, who wants to do that???? remember that companies are in to make money, and licensing is very profitable.

R.P

P.S: I guess console wars would be over too. Then it would be development

There is a standard for gaming, it's called PC/Windows/DirectX. It's somewhat cheaper, especially if you only upgrade your rig about as often as the consoles cycle. Of course, if you want to play all of the latest games in all their glory, you'll have to upgrade more often and at an increased price.You'll also have to deal with a lot more driver issues, and game patches. On the upside, you'll probably get to play with a lot of cool free mods and easily mess with the game files if that's your thing.

But the PC basically does act as a standard for 5-6 years. You could write a game today that will work on Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, and probably Vista in the future. Naturally, if you're aiming for the latest and greatest, then you're limiting your market for a while (and since the majority of sales for a game are right at release, that can be bad), but windows has some pretty consistent backwards compatibility.Making a console standard that didn't change for 5-6 years would provide marginally lower prices

My recollection of developer lock-in tactics is different from yours, though I may be wrong. Most of my knowledge on the subject comes from an excellent book, Game Over [amazon.com] (no I don't get a kickback if you follow the link...damn).

You're right that Console makers tried to ensure exclusivity in any way they could. However, my understanding is that the court cases you refer to were more than simple title exclusivity. Back in the height of their power, Nintendo's restrictions on publishers were pretty severe.

I think people are being a bit too harsh on Sony. Granted, my hopes aren't high for the PS3 (what we've seen so far doesn't impress much), but until there is some actual hardware in the field we won't know how badly it will suck. There's always the chance that Sony pulls a rabbit out of their hat and puts out a stunningly awesome console with a breathtaking lineup of games on launch. There's also the factor that if you're into RPGs or tactical sims, there's a good chance that the 360 won't ever be the ma

...execs boasting about superiority and features of non-existing products? "Our product will be 31% nicer and 73.6% more cool; it will be so cool, that software for our product couldn't even run on competition's product!"

Geez... Like kids in kindergarten. Just release the frelling product and we'll see for ourselves.

For some reason, you were affraid to post it with your real/. ID. Might it be because your are a hopeless Sony fanboy that will apologise for stupid mistakes of the company, no matter what?If you ask me, console vendors are all behaving like prescool kids, but the only people behaving less mature than them are vendor fanboys.

Grow the fscking up. There's no value in consoles other than what you really can do with them. Really, there's no value in software other than what you can do with it. It doesn't matte

I guess I may be in the minority but I plan to purchase the PS3 and am really looking forward to it. Sony has made some "missteps" in their marketing approach but ultimately the games will decide. For me, a non-PC gamer who is over Nintendo, the PS3 suits me. I own a HDTV and I have the means to afford it. Even if the PS3 itself sucks, it can still play some of the great PS2 games I own and upcoming PS2 titles that shouldn't disappoint, I can buy HD movies and watch until a winner in the format war is c

Why is it that every comment you've posted with your account is a defense of Sony's practices? Frankly, at this point, it doesn't look like the PS3 will even compete in the marketplace. If that is the case, the games are going to be few and far between. The best that Sony and you can hope for is that the PS3 carves out a nice chunk of the market (nowhere near the dominance that was enjoyed with the PS2).

Given that it's probably not going to be The Platform, I'd rather not support the company that was at the

My comments are in support of PS3 because I am level headed. Every company does the same stuff, Nintendo, Apple, MS, etc...they are no different. They all chase the almighty dollar is the same ways. It just so happens that Sony is the whipping boy of the moment. Everybody screams rootkit, proprietary hardware/software, etc... when it comes to Sony. They have all done the same (Windows, cartridges, the ipod itself) so what makes Sony so evil? For some insight read the reply on FCDD.
Am I a Sony fan, y

"I can afford plenty of things. Just because you can afford it, doesn't mean you should buy it. Tampons are priced to move but I have no use for them just as I have no use for a PS3."True, just because you CAN afford it doesn't mean you should buy it, however....Buying tampons as a male would probably be a pretty inefficient use of money anyway. Its spending on something you get nothing (usable) in return for.. (Like buying Windows from Microsoft?)

Its spending on something you get nothing (usable) in return for.. (Like buying Windows from Microsoft?)

Bad example? Buying into the Windows platform gives you access to device drivers for hardware that family members (if you are an individual) or businesses looking for a tax break (if you are a non-profit organization) donate to you. If they donate more Windows-compatible hardware than FreeBSD-compatible hardware, then Windows is the obvious choice over FreeBSD.

"The PS3 isn't even out yet. Theres no way to say if its going to be worth the extra money or not until you can actually see a product.. You wouldn't buy a car or shirt based on specifications, would you? Usually you take a test drive, or try it on..."

My point was merely that there is a difference between being able to afford something and seeing the need to buy it. The poster who I was responding to seemed to be implying that because he/she can afford the PS3, that was a reason to buy it.

Ok,
E-Distribution may help for smaller games, but I fail to see the logic of having a 25-50 gig blu-ray capacity, and a 25-60 gig hard drive. They do run contradictory to eachother.
Hopefully E-Distribution will help kill the greatest issue I have with Current gaming; Load screens. Maybe Gamers will finally wake up, and get used to the idea of a game not 'jerking you out of the game' to load the next portion of a level. That's why I own every current system, and play the Playstation 2 the least, and iron

What happens is that the game preloads all adjacent rooms as you enter. You'll notice that enemies appear on your radar that are in adjacent rooms, but not two rooms away. Which can make for some interesting gameplay quirks (you won't have to fight those nasty Chozo ghosts again if you happen to exit through the wrong door in the room). I wonder whether the game does some preloading of the adjacent rooms when you first shoot the door, and then opens the door after a specific amount of time, while it finishe

So you've just replaced your $100 PS2 with a $600 PS3? Genius!!
"Actually my PS2 was $300"
Interesting - I didn't see any. Sega didn't have any. They were just in the Sony booth? So they had what - 4 or 5 units? That's just an engineer spending a couple of days cramming a dev kit in a plastic box.
"I can only vouch for what I saw and played" see link below http://reviews.cnet.com/E3_Sony_PlayStation_3/4660 -12331_7-6521287.html [cnet.com]
Me too. Isn't it great? Any particular reason you haven't spent the last 6

But here's what I don't get.If you have the means to buy a HDTV and all the equipment needed to hook your PS3 into the system (HDMI connector? Mine 2-year old HDTV doesn't have one; so Sony would be making me buy a new TV-- screw that!)... why don't you just buy a Xbox 360 right now and enjoy all the benefits and features that Sony's giving you right now this instant? The only thing the 360 doesn't have that the PS3 does is a tilt-sensor controller-- but it *does* have rumble pack controllers, so it all e

Isn't offering some games only by distribution over the internet severely limiting your audience? Erecting any barrier of entry will shrink your audience, but internet-only distribution sounds like a bad idea not only because of bandwidth concerns, but because you can't share your game with your friends or sell it on the used games market. Gamers just won't want this.

internet-only distribution sounds like a bad idea not only because of bandwidth concerns

What bandwidth concerns? Server-side or residential? Most Nintendo DS games are 16 to 64 megabytes, and even iDSL can easily transfer 64 MB within an hour. PS1- and PSP-class games (ca. 500 MB) could easily fit over a broadband line overnight, and it's a lot cheaper than shipping a disc overnight via FedEx/DHL/UPS. Even with a PS2-class game, the system could download the first level overnight and then subsequent episo

If Microsoft had initially charged $600 when 360's were trading on ebay for over $1000, they would have made a tidy profit and could have dropped the price by now. Sony would be smart to learn from the Microsoft mistake and price high during the initial demand, then rapidly drop price as demand wanes. This would solidify the perceived value of the PS3 as very high (perhaps higher than the 360) but still enable them to match price down the road.
Give Sony some credit guys, they MIGHT actually be thinking ah

...to most people that Sony have simply got themselves into trouble by spending the past few years designing and developing the most powerful piece of gaming hardware that they could, and are now faced with a market which is not ready for it, or indeed particularly interested. In this round, having the latest, greatest, most powerful thing is not a sure fire way to win market share.The games industry has seen major changes since they started developing their new baby, and most of those changes do not help S

I mean, we had a great proof of concept on the first Xbox that running games from the HD ON A CONSOLE was possible, with people hacking their console to copy games to the hard disk. I'd be really surprised if the 360 can't do that out of the box now. I mean, they could have Halo 1 as a download on MarketPlace and people would download and run it. Xbox games ship on DVD9 anyway so you could fit almost two games on the HD (the game cache takes about 6 gigs IIRC). Considering that a game from SquareEnix on the

Did anyone else here ever notice how the tentative title for the PS3's online service, PNP [wikipedia.org] is pronounced "Pimp"? At this rate the final name will be something totally badass, like "Resurrection" or something...

Why are they aiming to try to outdo Xbox Live Arcade when they still have to worry about the back-catalog that will be available on Nintendo WiFi? Seriously, the offerings on Arcade are currently pretty slim, while Nintendo has four libraries to fall back on. Microsoft has been planning to offer Street Fighter II "any day now" while Nintendo can offer 3 different SNES ans a Genesis version.Other than that, if the Xbox 360 can't handle the hardware requirements for what Sony intends to offer online, just h

I've heard from a couple of places that Sony is inflating the price of Blu Ray stand alone players because they want the PS3 to be the cheapest Blu Ray player on the market once it's released.

Except that this theory doesn't work because if I'm not mistaken Samsung already has released a Blu-Ray player and other companies are soon following suit, including LG who is rumored to be coming with dual HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player. These companies will be pissed if their 1000$ player can't sell because Sony is flooding t

1) There will be major price slashing when the PS3 comes out of B-R players to be competitive, lowering the price in the HD-DVD range.
2) At 500$-600$, Sony is either losing a TON of money because the B-R costs them a lot to include, or the B-R player inside the PS3 is of so poor quality that it renders it useless to watch movies on an HD TV set (which is the point anyway, people who will buy Blu-Ray movies are going to expect quality since they have an HD-set capable of playing them at native-res)